Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

"Probably because I didn't actually add anything substantive to the discussion. It's cool--I have the karma to burn, and my sig says it all." Indeed.

The way to get karma at slashdot is to comment honestly, rationally, candidly, without rancor, and most of all don't worry about the karma. I get modded "troll" and "flamebait" quite often (despite the fact that I don't, in fact, troll, and try to be calm) but my karma is excellent and I usuall

Well, as long as we're talking about the David and Goliath story, once David grew up to be a general, he was pretty much as bloodthirsty and savage as any other.

Specifically, he would cut off his enemies' foreskins as proof of how many he killed.

Yes, you read that right -- their foreskins.

I know this mostly because my name is David, and I used to be proud of this guy -- until I read the actual story (and not the sugarcoated kids' version, which is still pretty bad.)

To avoid being completely offtopic, I guess I wonder how much we should really be cheering the "little guy"? I love to see the RIAA writhing in agony on the ground, holding its testicles, but this isn't combat. Do we really want to support an "emotional distress" charge?

However, you make a grave mistake of taking one example out of its context in casting it in ours. David was more or less ordered (specifically challenged) to bring in foreskins as proof of body counts. Yes this would be rather gross today. But back then it was very likely a rather simple way to ensure a Jewish force was killing non-Jewish males. You know, they didn't have embedded journalists back then. Nor did they have the Geneva convention for rules of war and return of combatants' (unmolested) bodies.

So yes, it was "savage" from our point of view. But it isn't appropriate to make it appear that David had a weird bloodthirsty foreskin fetish. There are much more reasonable criticisms you could correctly make of David if you wish to do so.

I think she has beaten you to it.
Third claim for relief: Abuse of legal process
From the document [ilrweb.com]; "8.18 As detailed above and herein, the RIAA and the Record Companies pursued
litigation against Plaintiff, and many processes attendant to that litigation (including the filing
of an initial information-farming "John" and "Jane Doe" action to obtain subpoena power), not
for purposes of protecting or vindicating the copyrights purportedly at issue, but instead for the
primary unlawful purpose of intimidating Plaintiff and the general public in order to maintain
and preserve as long as possible their monopolistic control over the world's market for the
distribution of sound recordings."
IANAL though, so maybe I have it all wrong.

It is encouraging to finally hear that last night, the RIAA and the member companies that were involved in the case finally paid the fees (they refused first), putting an end to this protracted legal wrangling. The amount paid was not, however, $107,834 but a figure of $107,951 â" a figure which takes into account interest accrued due to delay.
[snip]
So, with Thomas looking to head to a mistrial, making the $222,000 judgment null and void, the two largest decisions in the RIAA's 'war on downloading' have been against them. In both cases the RIAA admitted it was wrong, and ordered to pay the fees.

how many of those free download credits will be expended on music by independent artists who aren't even affiliated with RIAA

which was the whole post. If the result of a class action lawsuit was free iTunes downloads, then inevitably, some of them would be used for non-RIAA music, which is a good thing for everyone but the RIAA.

That said, I don't think the indie effect would be that big, and the GGPP's point (and yours) still stands. It reminds me of the time I got a card from BlockBuster about a class action settlement that I'd never heard of. They gave me six coupon

And then we'll hear all about how "the system works".
I'm surprised that no one here blames the legal system that enables the likes of the RIAA - if the system is setup in such a way that some bully can take advantage of people, they eventually will.

NYCL, I completely agree with you that "the system does not work" but I think the person who made comment you're replying was taking a long view. In the grand scheme of things, if the judges listen to your rational disassembly of RIAA's methods, and shift the pendulum back even a smidge toward sanity, then there are those who will claim "see, the system works, it's self-correcting" and ignore the dust-up. Nevermind that the pendulum should never have swung in RIAA's favor, nevermind that many Tonya Andersons were legally abused for many years for no good reason; they will just say it's how the system works.

I see your cause as something akin to a civil version of The Innocence Project; you can hardly say "the system works" when some backwater judges and prosecutors ignore exculpatory evidence and men are incarcerated or put to death on the flimsiest of hearsay and innuendo. But because some people are ultimately let out of prison after decades of pain and suffering, the Death Penalty advocates (those few who will even acknowledge that a mistake might possibly happen in a court of law) will say, "See? The system works."

In the "grand scheme of things" you mention, we all (in the US) operate under a very elaborate regime of exploitation fondly known as capitalism. (Pick your favorite scheme - they all amount to one form or another of exploitation.) Fact.

People decided that an organized way of dealing with this (i.e courts) was preferable to the alternative - which is pretty much to not deal with it.

The "grand scheme" and the court system are both full of people like you and me, who are in no way perfect. Ergo, you will

Monetary damages against corporations will never be enough. Since they are fictitious legal persons we need the equivalent of prison time for them. In the information age it's perfectly possible to 'lock up' a company, suspending their trading and seizing all assets for 60 days would REALLY HURT.

It may even collapse the company. Well, if they can't take the heat they shouldn't be doing the crime. This is the only way to give society and the courts that represent us any teeth against corporations.

Monetary damages against corporations will never be enough. Since they are fictitious legal persons we need the equivalent of prison time for them. In the information age it's perfectly possible to 'lock up' a company, suspending their trading and seizing all assets for 60 days would REALLY HURT.

It may even collapse the company. Well, if they can't take the heat they shouldn't be doing the crime. This is the only way to give society and the courts that represent us any teeth against corporations.

Vote for corporate jail time.

Since what they've done here isn't a crime, why are you mentioning imprisonment at all? The worst thing they've done here is a civil tort, and the only remedy available to anyone for civil torts are civil damages, i.e. generally monetary damages.

I'm not aware of anyone actually having accussed the RIAA of extortion (or the related offenses), but I could be mistaken. Here, however, she's specifically accusing them of a civil offense, not a criminal one. Perhaps I should have spoken more explicitly.

In direct response to your idea: if, hypothetically, the RIAA is found to have either extorted or attempted to extort (including conspiracy) then the individuals who did so can be personally found guilty and imprisoned. Unless you can show that the company possessed the mental state required for the crime - which is conceptually impossible, absent extremely odd circumstances - you're not going to be able to demonstrate the elements of the offense.

Perhaps the question you should ask is, why would you want to extend the liability shield of a corporation-as-fictional-person to include excusing the real persons who make up the corporation from any punishment for their criminal wrongdoings?

This is the correct answer: it is already a criminal offense to organize a group for the purpose of criminal enterprises (e.g. collusion, extortion) and this already allows the imprisoning of those criminal leaders. In fact, contracts are void where their purpose is criminal, covering the civil side. Applying the crimes to the corporation would only serve to shield the actual directors.

What you've got to do, in order to avoid just speaking in hyperbole (this is the rhetorical 'you', here) is show that

Actually, if you read some of what NewYorkCountryLawyer's written on the subject, RIAA attorneys have gotten close to contempt citations, disbarment, etc. on several occasions. My understanding is that contempt of court is a criminal charge (although usually handled via fines).

I say monetary damages are appropriate. Let's see, Mrs. Anderson was up against, what, 5 to 6 years of annual gross income? 5 to 6 years of gross income for Atlantic should be sufficient and appropriate.:-)

When I was in elementary school oh so long ago, one teacher found a way to stop the bullies from doing disruptive behavior.

They punished the whole class and let the bully go free. It was done in class, and very publicly, so that EVERYBODY was suffering from the act of one person. Peer pressure from everybody works wonders.

Apply this idea to a company: Your assets are froze for 10 days, stocks cannot be traded in their name, and the workers MUST be paid. The ones responsible for this would be outed rather quickly.

>>> When I was in elementary school oh so long ago, one teacher found a way to stop the bullies from doing disruptive behavior.
>>>They punished the whole class and let the bully go free. It was done in class, and very publicly, so that EVERYBODY was suffering from the act of one person. Peer pressure from everybody works wonders.

I've seen that kind of thinking in action. The result was that everyone totally lost any faith in the administration and the lesson they learned was that the only path to success was being an outlaw.

I was very fortunate to go to a school (40 years ago) where disruption was not allowed. The disruptive 'students' were suspended. If they didn't shape up, they were permanently removed. The school administrators there believed that the taxpayers had built the school and were paying their salaries so that students could learn, and any students who were not there to learn had no place in the school.

in my experience, such uses of peer pressure == violence out of sight of the authorities which in turn == vigilante justice.
I've seen that tried in elementary school too, and then later still in basic training. In school, the bully repeated his behaviors, because from his perspective, he not only got away with it, he got an evil chuckle over the other poor saps who got punished for his actions. Until; that is, until a few kids got fed up and worked him over in the alley after school.
In basic, it was routi

To me, the whole analogy is useless. When I went to school, bullies did not operate under the noses of the school's teachers and administrators. They preyed on their victims before school, after school, off of school premises, on lunch breaks off of the school premises, and on weekends. If they ever did anything in schools it was in lonely stairwells. I never received any assistance or even notice of any kind from any teacher or administrator.

I haven't RTFAs (or not all of them anyway - have you?). But I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?

I haven't RTFAs (or not all of them anyway - have you?). But I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?

Personally, I think it makes it a bit more disgusting that the completely innocent person you are torturing over a frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case, happens to be a disabled single mother of a small child whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Here [blogspot.com]'s some background.

There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.

People certainly should have a heart. I think you're reading rather a lot into my question, though.

The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant being disabled, or a single mother or on Social Security. Why raise any of these issues in a news summary? "Person begins to get redress for 'frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case'" would do. A person's disability (or colour, or religion, or income, or favourite football team) doesn't need to be brought into the equation unless it's relevant (maybe if she was deaf it would add an extra layer).

People certainly should have a heart. I think you're reading rather a lot into my question, though.
The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant being disabled, or a single mother or on Social Security. Why raise any of these issues in a news summary?

Because it says something important about the rat bastards that the RIAA has dredged up to handle these cases for them.

Because it says something important about the rat bastards that the RIAA has dredged up to handle these cases for them.

Ray, although what you say is true, it should be your 3rd answer, not your first. Here are the first two:1) Because the defendant's precarious personal situation directly determines the direct damages suffered by the defendant.

2) Because the RIAA campaign of intimidation and extortion relies on the weakness of their targets making them settle under pressure.

These two points are much more important than the fact that the RIAA lawyers are rat bastards. 1) and 2) support the case directly.

Keep on plugging away at them, Ray. They must suffer personally and professionally for this, not just in the form of business losses.

"The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant...- being disabled- a single mother- on Social Security."

Really? If you're on Social Security, you probably don't have a particularly big income. If you have a child, a chunk of it will go to that child. If you're disabled, you'll probably have additional expenses for that as well. Granted, she may be compensated for the child / disabilities to some extent in terms of money, but how's that going to compensate for all the hours lost that could be spent with her child instead? I haven't checked what disabilities are in play here - but it seems reasonably likely to me that she will be forced to deal with her disabilities more often than without the case. Now you may claim that "that's life, life sucks", but I'd argue that the RIAA made her life suck in that regard.

But let's take the heart out of it, and focus only on the money aspect and your statement "the case [does] not in any way hinge on"; if that were true, don't you think that there would be a greater portion of cases that would go to arbitration / court, rather than being settled? A great number of cases are settled not because the target knows they're guilty anyway (in which case, settling might be the wise thing to do - but I'll leave that for future cases on whether awarded damages to the RIAA are fitting to the 'crime'), but because the target simply does not have the resources (specifically: money) to bring a solid defense - mounting one leading to debts far greater than a settlement does.

Makes me wonder what you would say if she had been in a coma for last 20yrs, still not relevant?

Did you read what I said? "If she was deaf it would add an extra layer." In other words, her specific disability would have contributed materially to the case and would therefore be of importance to the news summary. So no, 20 years of coma would not be irrelevant, since it would imply that the RIAA had made an obvious mistake.

It strongly implies she is financialy and physically helpless and thus it superficially

There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.

I agree that people should have a heart, but the legal system needs to be blind. It shouldn't matter whether Ms. Andersen was a disabled mother of 20, or a wealthy oil magnate who has a drinking problem.

True to/. form I shall impart wisdom with a quote from a fictional source(yes I know).

"Has Picard no respect for justice? Tasha asks, "What of justice for Wesley? Does he really deserve to die?" Riker commends the Edo's system of justice is probably better than any they once had, a testimony to their beautiful way of life, but adds that the Captain is also bound by the laws of the Prime Directive, which states he must protect his people from harm. The group is ready to beam out, but the alien force prevent

You're absolutely incorrect. Everyone from law enforcement to judicial powers should be human and practice discretion within the full extent of the law. This is how the law is made to work in reality - one law for everyone goes only so far. Circumstances always weigh in. (Not to say they should predominate, but neither should they be ignored.)

(Not to say they should predominate, but neither should they be ignored.)

With that statement, it sounds like you agree with me. Any person should have the same rights to be heard in a court of law as any other person.

I also agree with you that circumstances should way in, but only if it pertains to the case. The fact that Tanya Andersen was a single mother and had a disability does nothing for the case and has no bearing on the case. If Tanya Andersen had been a college grad with a high paying job, or a 90 year old, elderly grandmother, the case should have been the same.

You don't know me at all if you think I mention that to "make waves"; I mention it because I think it makes the RIAA lawyers' conduct even more egregious. If you don't agree with me don't agree with me. As I said before it's a matter of values. If you don't share my values, don't.

It counts because her disability severely limited her economic means, and the RIAA tried to use this fact to bulldoze her into a settlement.

It also counts because this is a war on 3 fronts - legal, political, and PR. Her disability has little to do with the legal case (except as mentioned above), but is hugely relevant to the PR war and possibly to the political war - picture this woman in front of a congressional committee, and even the Senator from Disney will be groveling to show how much he sympathizes with her.

And if you don't believe it's a PR war too, why is this a favorite Slashdot topic.

Because in the PR war, "disabled" is a more powerful weapon than "poor".

Wrap your heads around this, geeks - rationality has NOTHING to do with PR, and is only marginally related to politics. If we keep demanding playbook that is strictly rational, we are going to lose. Period.

"Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?"

Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does.

The RIAA has been targeting people who are perceived as particularly poor and defenseless. They want people thinking, "My God, if they'll go after a five-year-old child for downloading one single song, they'll go crazy on me and my 50 songs." And they want to roll up a string of easy convictions and settlements. They know they can't actually prosecute more than the tiniest fraction of the cases, so the only hope they have of making a measurable impact on downloading is to intimidate people...especially the ones who might be inclined to download a single song from an otherwise-awful CD.

They know if they go after a big player, they'll have a fight on their hands, and they certainly don't want that. A loss could set their cause back.

Besides, they'd rather kick a puppy than a full-grown pit bull. That's because they're pricks.

I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?

Because it evokes the mental image of a "big bad corporation" picking on a "helpless disabled woman". It is called "spin". Here is the same summary with a different "spin".

The RIAA, a copyright defense group representing thousands of musicians and artists was shocked today by a judges decision to award over $100,000 to a person accused of pirating and distributing music illegally. In related news, the accused has filed a countersuit requesting huge additional damages from the artists' organization. An unnamed RIAA spokesperson was quoted as saying. "This was all a big misunderstanding. We represent the musicians that are losing millions to stolen music, and this settlement will come out of their pockets. In the end, that robs the paying music customer."

Sounds a lot different. Says the same thing.

-ellie

Don't flame me bro, this is not defending the RIAA, just answering the question.

Wow, did I slip into a paralell universe or something? I'm hoisting a glass to the esteemed Mr. Beckerman tonight at JW's as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead.
I hope you can afford that new tie now, Ray;)
Whatever you're getting out of this, it isn't enough.

Thanks for your kind thoughts, sm62704, but these well earned fees go to my esteemed brothers and sisters at Lybeck Murphy [lawyers.com] in Mercer Island, Washington. And I am hoisting a glass to them for their outstanding and courageous victory.

NewYorkCountryLawyer for President! (I know, I know, this wasn't your case - I just felt like posting this.)

Now if that were the case, I would actually vote, for the first time since 1970.

I am deeply honored.

(By the way, I have never not voted. Even when I was in the hospital recovering from brain surgery, and wasn't allowed to sit up, my kids brought me an absentee ballot and helped me fill it out. Although the likelihood of me getting on the ballot is nonexistent, please do vote anyway. Worst comes to worst, you can do a write-in vote for Cmdr Taco).

You know, for years I touted the Grateful Dead as a band that was a pioneer in allowing the free taping and trading of their shows. Jerry was wise beyond his years saying that once they were done with a show it didn't matter what the fans did with it. In the years since his death (it seems like yesterday when I got word on IRC) the remaining members of the band have tightened the restrictions on the trading of their shows and now places like archive.o

First, congrats to Ms.Andersen for making the RIAA pay for its mistake. But compensation of her legal costs does not count as proper compensation, for several reasons:

Not sure how this usually works, but if you hire a lawyer to defend yourself against such charges, isn't it up to you to pay that lawyer until compensation gives you a refund (which may take years)? Meaning: if you haven't got any money to spare, you can't mount a proper defense. If you take it out of a savings account, you're missing the (higher!) interest you would have had, had that money been kept there. Perhaps you might settle, out of fear that you can't keep paying your lawyer as long as needed. That alone tilts the playing field to the RIAA side.

If only the lawyers' fee is compensated, your time is regarded as either free, or worthless? (take your pick). That is ridiculous. Any time you spend on it could have been spent making money, quality time with friends/family, hobbies, going out, etc, etc. Regardless of how much you think your time is worth, forcing other people to waste their time (if your reasons are shown invalid) should cost money, period. Time is about the only thing you can't buy, no matter how rich you are. What if this had been a cancer patient with <3 months to live?

Then there's the distress caused, negative publicity surrounding her person, etc, all of which doesn't count as damage?

For all these reasons, Ms.Andersen deserves a lot more compensation than just legal fees. It's too bad she has to start her own proceedings to get those. It would be better if that were automatic. Get proven wrong in a 'big corp vs. little guy' lawsuit, and be ordered to compensate legal fees plus an automatic percentage for related damages. Otherwise it's just too easy for corporations to bully on ordinary folks (like we see all the time).

(satire) In a related story, the RIAA will be increasing the charges assigned to people who pay to cover the cost of loosing to someof the people who fight back.(/satire)

I just hope this isn't a joke that becomes reality. One of the basic problems with the whole system here is that it's out of balance. It's appropriate to be able to seek redress from someone who violates your copyright; but the amounts involved (the amounts the individuals are being required to pay when they loose) are out of proportion to

The entire civil legal industry is based on the fact that it costs far more to defend yourself against whatever the plaintiff claim (lie) than to pay what they ask. Plaintiffs are almost never forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant, unless the case is very public AND black and white.
It is all a sham and a huge subsidy for sleazy attorneys that know how to work the system, often at the expense of an insurance company, but not always.
I found this out the hard way when I made the mistake of selling my home to a sleazeball attorney. They can fuck with you based on the most flimsy of reasons and it costs them very little to ruin your life.
The defense attorneys, that burn through their client's life savings by over billing and accomplishing nothing, but still make costly mistakes, are no better. "Justice" is only for the rich. Far worse than the money, is the stress, the fear that my children may not be able to attend college because of it.
It should be a crime, but it never will. Who runs the court system? Judges, that are also attorneys. Who makes the laws? Elected attorneys.

this, because it is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of personal values.

There are some people who feel that the suffering and hardship caused to these defendants is strictly irrelevant, and that it is irrelevant whether their ability to defend themselves is impaired by disability or poverty.

As to those of you who feel this way I can only say this:

1. You are not my kind of people.

2. If you are lawyers, you are not my kind of lawyers, and in my opinion you are violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by exhibiting an indifference to the harm you cause.

3. The phrase that 'justice is blind' does NOT mean that it is indifferent to the suffering of those it affects, or that little people can be squashed by the wealthy in court; it means that the justice system has an obligation to protect the poor and the defenseless from the predations of the wealthy and powerful in court.

4. Those of you who are making these remarks about how Ms. Andersen's circumstances are irrelevant are probably the same people who love to dump on lawyers all the time. In point of fact, all good lawyers are compassionate, and will refrain from causing unnecessary harm to others with whom they come in contact. No good lawyer would have pursued the Tanya Andersen case.

Her child was being researched by the RIAA. They would call about Ms. Anderson's daughter at work and at child's school, looking for her. Now, I am no parent, but, that would really scare me and fear for my child. As such, her mental state was suffering from these court cases, and she took leave from work and skipped court days sometimes.

Pigs, the lot of the MAFIAA.

Anderson has a lot of guts to stand up to them even after that. Cheers to her and her courage. Hope this helps put an end to the music and movie court cases.

this was on hackaday first... And this isn't the first time that Slashdot has essentially copied their posts

I can see where you might think that, because the Slashdot post was not released until after hackaday. But the reality is that the story was on p2pnet.net [p2pnet.net] before it was on hackaday, and it was on Recording Industry vs. The People [blogspot.com] first of all. Just because the Slashdot post comes out after it was published on hackaday doesn't mean it was 'copied' from hackaday; it just means the post was in the Firehose and on the editors' screens at Slashdot for awhile, before it was published.

Spoken like a true/.'er!Thanks for keeping us up to date and this breath of fresh, sweet air. *inhales deeply* Ahhh...fresh flowers and.. OMG!! Ponies!Now let us hope that phase two works in Ms. Anderson's favor also, then we may be able to start seeing the RIAA monopoly crumble, or at least a better business model from them. Both for our sakes, and especially for the artist's sakes.

One of my best friends is a professional musician in a band, and they checked out signing with RIAA affiliated labels.(about

Spoken like a true/.'er!
Thanks for keeping us up to date and this breath of fresh, sweet air. *inhales deeply* Ahhh...fresh flowers and.. OMG!! Ponies!
Now let us hope that phase two works in Ms. Anderson's favor also, then we may be able to start seeing the RIAA monopoly crumble, or at least a better business model from them. Both for our sakes, and especially for the artist's sakes.
One of my best friends is a professional musician in a band, and they checked out signing with RIAA affiliated labels.(about four years ago) It would actually have cost them money to sign instead of make them money.(unless by some miracle they became popular overnight) Being smart guys,the band finally started their own distribution in addition to signing with an independent label that allows them to continue to do so. They are making a decent living with their music now instead of paying some label to be musicians.